Vogel's The Making Of A Prophet

[The Dude]

This thread must now officially represent one of the most classic examples of the peculiar contramo talent for seeing nothing but that which seems to support its skewed view of the world.

Oh, it's a classic example of something, alright!

As always, I will leave it our readers to determine whether or not there is any distortion of truth occurring here, and if so, with whom said distortion originates.

Indeed.

[Who Knows]

Will. I'm still trying to figure out your point here. What is it?

[truth dancer]

OK... how about this...

If anyone in the future notices that in a footnote, someone states a document is in the wrong box, why not contact the author, and say something like, "Hey _______, I noticed that the document you mentioned has been moved to box 2271 from 2278. Just thought you may want to know".

Author will respond, "Oh thanks. I appreciate the information."

~dancer~

[Zeitgeist]

Mr. William Schryver,

I think you are seeing what you want to see. Vogel gave his source and fully explained it as well as gave you multiple places for you to see it. It does sure enough exist. You have shown nothing except how one might strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.

Zeitgeist

[truth dancer]

Hi Charity....

I still don't think you understand. Let me try again.

truth dancer, I am suggesting that the standard has to do with provenance. When something leaves the hands of the original source, and then is passed along, you don't know what has happened to it.

Charity, the document has been printed in a Mormon friendly book for the world to see. It has been used by Mormon friendly authors. No scholars are disputing the fact of the existence of the document. The document is not at issue here.

NO ONE is claiming the document was altered (unless you are). No one is claiming Dan misused the document. No one is claiming a forgery.

Will is claiming the document is in a different box than the one Dan stated.

The Tanners are well known for their anti-Mormon tactics. They haven't been exaclty accurate in other things they have done. I wouldn't accuse them of any particular act, but they are not a pristine source. A serious historian would know that and be very careful of tainting his/her work with that association.

Again, I would ask you, why in the world would anyone alter a microfilm to show a document was in the wrong box?

I don't know, and you don't either, exaclty what the history of the debated document is.

See, you seem to be worried about the document.

The document is NOT what is being discussed.

The box in which the document resides is at issue.

~dancer~

[Zeitgeist]

I have experience in moving boxes. Sometimes, in and in the case of certain documents the Church recatalogues. Not on purpose to trick people, but because they have been revamping and recataloguing items. There is almost always a number translation that directs one to the new box, location , or catalogue number for that item. The fact that it is in a new location is meaningless. Substance is the issue.

Dan has written a very interesting and in my mind well reasoned interpretative biography about Joseph Smith. Is it definitive? No, but I do not think Dan makes that claim. Dan addresses seom of the mystery about Joseph Smith. Particularly the difference between what Joseph claimed to be and his actions. What Jospeh calimed happened and the evidence. Kudos to Dan for making me so interested in Joseph and giving me a very important biography. For those who misread Dan, reread his introduction, I thin kit is critical to undersanding the introduction to understand the thesis and interpretation of Dan's book. I cannot wait for his next project.

Zeitgeist

[Uncle Dale]

For those who misread Dan, reread his introduction, I think it is critical to undersanding the introduction to understand the thesis and interpretation of Dan's book. I cannot wait for his next project.

Zeitgeist

'Twould be interesting to see Dan move into a study of the Kirtland period in a big

way. Scott Kenny is now writing a book on that era of Church history and once the

new volume is released there may be something of a rekindling of interest in that part

of our history.

Especially during the first years of the Kirtland experience there is little primary

source material for us to consult -- the pickings get a little better after Woodruff,

G. A. Smith and some other literate converts joined the Church.

I would think that Dan Vogel is well positioned to chase down new and unexamined

documentary sources for at least the Ohio Saints during the 1830s. Such a compilation

of previously unused sources could form the basis for a study of Joseph Smith's motives

and actions in bringing forth the JST, Book of Abraham, etc.

How about it, Dan -- are you interested?

Your Uncle Dale

[William Schryver]

Mr. William Schryver,

I think you are seeing what you want to see. Vogel gave his source and fully explained it as well as gave you multiple places for you to see it. It does sure enough exist. You have shown nothing except how one might strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.

Zeitgeist

Mr. Zeitgeist,

Your comment might have some remote connection to this discussion had the initial post questioned anything but the presence of this document in the Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers. I again cite the footnote which Mr. Vogel attached to his description of the document:

22. Original in LDS Church Archives, catalogued among Joseph Smith

[Zeitgeist]

This is based on memory, I will be back to edit later. Must go now.

Actually it once was see: Brigham Young University Studies 11 (Summer 1971):351 and was based upon a listing prepared by the Church Historian's Office (now known as the Family and Church History Department or LDS archives).

Translation MS No. 2 BAbr MS 1a (handwriting of Frederick G. Williams)

; Text: Abr 1:4-2:6

The document to referred is catalogued in the LDS Archives as Ms d 3408 fd 4.

It was in the time the Tanners released it, in the Egyptian Papers Collection. It was moved out shortly after the Tanners wrote their work.

I will be back after I check this out again.

Zeitgeist

[truth dancer]

Hi Will...

According to my research, there is no such document among the

[William Schryver]

Zeitgeist provides the following description of a document:

Translation MS No. 2 BAbr MS 1a (handwriting of Frederick G. Williams)

; Text: Abr 1:4-2:6

This is what is known, in the Church archives, as: MS 1294 folder 2.

The so-called "Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers" are contained in MS 1294 fds 1 - 5. and in MS 1295 fds 1 - 9.

The document to which Mr. Vogel referred is not contained in either of these places.

I've never suggested that it wasn't stored elsewhere in the archives. If someone claims I did, let them cite the instance from my posts. They will search in vain. Even Mr. Vogel has suggested that I argued against the existence of the document. I did not. I am familiar with the particular document to which he is referring. It is not in the J.S. Egyptian papers. I'm not certain that it is, in fact, in the handwriting of Oliver Cowdery. I will yet verify that.

In any event, it has been quite interesting to see the reaction of Mr. Vogel and his supporters as demonstrated in this thread. It is, after all, a single inaccurate footnote. As I noted in my initial comments, it's hardly reason (taken alone) to dismiss the entire book. However, it did give me pause to wonder. And therefore, I asked whether anyone else had found factual inaccuracies in the book. In response, all of the foremost contramo posters instantly banded together to defend their champion, united in their adamant denial of the demonstrable facts of the case.

It is a fascinating case study in group think, to say the least. I'll save this entire thread for future reference.

[The Dude]

In response, all of the foremost contramo posters instantly banded together to defend their champion, united in their adamant denial of the demonstrable facts of the case.

Not really. I was more interested in attacking your hillarious posture and your inability to back down with grace. I can't speak for the rest of the rat pack.

[William Schryver]

truth dancer:

I'm still trying to figure out why anyone cares which box a document is in?

I'm sure you are.

By the way, did I mention the First Presidency letter authorizing the instant disfellowship (and possible excommunication) of any member found reading books written by certain listed authors?

A copy was read churchwide last week in every Stake PEC meeting.

The original can be located in the church archives in the same box with Brigham Young's 1856 order to the Iron County Militia to slaughter the Fancher party.

[William Schryver]

In response, all of the foremost contramo posters instantly banded together to defend their champion, united in their adamant denial of the demonstrable facts of the case.

Not really. I was more interested in attacking your hillarious posture and your inability to back down with grace. I can't speak for the rest of the rat pack.

Always the aloof mocker.

That's what I admire about you. You're consistent.

And, by the way, what part of my original claim do you think I would do well to "back down" from? I heartily encourage you to cite any fallacious aspect of my claim. Use anything you can find in my posts on this thread. If you can demonstrate one thing I have written that was not absolutely factual, I vow to acknowledge it here and now.

[truth dancer]

Hi Will...

In response, all of the foremost contramo posters instantly banded together to defend their champion, united in their adamant denial of the demonstrable facts of the case.

CFR.

Where has anyone displayed an "adamant denial of the demonstrable facts of the case."

What is funny is that you seem to think of this issue as a "case."

No one cares (except maybe you and Charity), in which box the document is located. No one thinks a mistake in location of a document amounts to an "extraordinary claim."

As I mentioned earlier, most folks, if they noticed that a document had been moved (or a word misspelled, or a page number incorrect), would just give a little FYI to the author.

I'm not sure why this is a "case" for you.

~dancer~

[Who Knows]

By the way, did I mention the First Presidency letter authorizing the instant disfellowship (and possible excommunication) of any member found reading books written by certain listed authors?

A copy was read churchwide last week in every Stake PEC meeting.

I haven't heard that. What books are on the list? I'll make sure and go pick up a copy.

Can you feel the love...

[truth dancer]

Hi Will...

By the way, did I mention the First Presidency letter authorizing the instant disfellowship (and possible excommunication) of any member found reading books written by certain listed authors?

A copy was read churchwide last week in every Stake PEC meeting.

The original can be located in the church archives in the same box with Brigham Young's 1856 order to the Iron County Militia to slaughter the Fancher party.

If this were a factual document I wouldn't care if it was in the same box with Brigham Young's order or if it had been moved to the same box as today's conference report.

The location is not significant. The document is.

~dancer~

[LadySundancer]

I don't claim to know every minute detail of what this discussion is about but the footnote used in the OP states that the darn paper was catalogued in the JS Egyptian collection. Another poster states that is so...and that they were transferred to another collection after the Tanners used them....or some such thing.

What on earth is this argument about?

The paper exists.

The paper WAS part of the JS Egyptian collection

The paper, when part of the JS Egyptian collection, was accessed by the Tanners...put on microfilm?

That matches exactly...Dan's explanation of how he viewed the paper doesn't it?

What is questionable here? That the paper was moved? Who cares?!?!

Why all this foolish bantering back and forth?

Why hasn't anyone taken Dale up on his offer? Why not Charity?

LSD

[gramps]

The original can be located in the church archives in the same box with Brigham Young's 1856 order to the Iron County Militia to slaughter the Fancher party.

I knew it existed! The smoking gun.

Hey, Will/Provis, I could really use a copy of that; if you have it on microfilm or something, I would love a copy. Thanks in advance.

[William Schryver]

LSD:

The paper exists.

True.

The paper WAS part of the JS Egyptian collection.

False.

It is fascinating, however, to observe how Mr. Vogel's little attempt at mitigation:

It is possible that the document was moved from the Kirtland Egyptian Papers Collection since it really doesn

[charity]

to all the "adamant defenders": I won't speak for anyone else. But for me the issue is trust in the author. I am not a historian. I will not be checking each and every footnote in a work. If the author/historian has established him/herself as a reliable source, then I will read the work and probably learn from it. But I don't have time (or rather, choose to devote the majority of my time to other projects) to have to read and wonder if what I am reading is credible.

So I look at the author's track record. If the author is careful and has been shown to be accurate, I read their work. If they have a spotty past with regards to accuracy and interpretation, then I won't.

This little dust up has shown me a couple of things. Dan Vogel is not extremely careful in citations. And despite his protestations, by the words out of his mouth, he made an assumption based on what I consider an unreliable source.

I don't care what little box a document is in. I care about how he represented that he knew it was there.

[Uncle Dale]

I look at the author's track record. If the author is careful and has been shown to be accurate, I read their work. If they have a spotty past with regards to accuracy and interpretation, then I won't.

Just out of curiosity, what is your opinion of Robert and Rosemary Brown, whose

several volumes of LDS apologetics are stocked in quantity by Deseret Books and

featured here at FAIR for free downloading?

Uncle Dale

[cksalmon]

In response, all of the foremost contramo posters instantly banded together to defend their champion, united in their adamant denial of the demonstrable facts of the case.

Yes, Will, though I've never met, spoken with, emailed, in any other way communicated with, or even participated in a thread involving Dan Vogel

[noel00]

I believe Nibley has been sloppy in his use of footnotes. Charity, do you read his books?

[charity]

noel, I have read Nibley's works. Not so much for the history, but for the gospel principles that are contained in them. In general his work resonates with my spirit. I'm not going to get any salvific information from anything Dan Vogel writes. And as for history, a person who throws out the idea of tin plates has to do a lot more to gain my confidence. Being meticulous, is one of the "lot more."